Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate: Part 4

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:00

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.

00:09

I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them.

00:14

They're following men instead of the Word of God. Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

00:29

Hands standing on top of my feet, standing on a stump and crying out,

00:35

He died for all those who were elected, were selected. For still our ancient foe does seek to work us woe.

00:47

His craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate.

00:54

Well, first of all, James, I'm very ignorant of the Reformers.

01:00

On earth is not his equal. I think

01:06

I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists.

01:12

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing.

01:19

But God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever.

01:26

Were not the right man on our side, the man of God's own choosing.

01:34

Doomed before the womb? You ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he.

01:43

Lord, swallow off his name. Read my book. From age to age the same.

01:50

And he must win the battle. And now, from our underground bunker hidden deep beneath Liberty University, where no one would think to look, safe from those mutter

02:11

Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re -read George Bryson's book, we are

02:17

Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say to his own eternal glory.

02:26

And good afternoon, welcome to the Dividing Line. Once again, day number four now of the five days on the subject of the doctrines of grace.

02:35

I will be joining Steve Gregg here in just a moment. The reason we do it this way is because Steve Gregg's program begins at a particular point in time, and therefore we need to join him when he's able to have us join him.

02:51

So, we start at the regular time. Not exactly sure what the format's going to be today. We didn't discuss changing time frames or anything like that, so we'll just sort of see as we get started.

03:01

My recollection is that Mr. Gregg will be going first, because I had last word last time, and had presented some issues regarding Acts 13, 48.

03:11

So I would assume, since that was about the second longest discussion that he offered in his MP3 files, that that's where we would be picking up today.

03:19

At least that's what I assumed when I put the link on the blog this morning. So we should be joining up with him in just a matter of seconds for day number four of the debate.

04:03

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is

04:08

Steve Gregg, and we are live from 2 to 3 in the afternoon Pacific Daylight Time. And as we have been for the past few days, we're going to continue today and tomorrow a series of broadcasts where we've departed from our normal format.

04:23

Normally we just have an open line for you to call in and raise any issue you want to talk about here.

04:29

But for five days in a row, this being the fourth of the five, Dr.

04:36

James White and I have been dialoguing on the subject of Calvinism. And I consider it a great privilege to have

04:41

Dr. White with us. He is a noted scholar, a noted Christian apologist, and has written and debated a great deal on the subject of Calvinism and Arminianism.

04:50

He is a Calvinist, I am not. And that is what we'll be doing today. I'm going to turn it over immediately now without further ado to our timekeeper,

04:57

Paul Spurlock. Paul? Thank you, Steve. As Steve mentioned, my name is Paul Spurlock. I'm a local pastor here in the

05:04

Santa Cruz area. And it's my delight today to introduce to you and give a brief biographical sketch of the two debaters, beginning with Steve Gregg.

05:11

As you know, he is, of course, the founder and host of this very radio broadcast, The Narrow Path. Steve has a wealth of biblical knowledge that I think probably, no doubt, was developed by his yearly teachings through the

05:22

Bible at the school he founded, the Great Commission School. Steve is also the author of Revelation 4

05:28

Views, a real hot seller. He's a frequent Bible teacher all over the world with youth with a mission, or YWAM.

05:35

It's a delight to have Steve today representing the non -Calvinist view. Steve is joined today by Dr.

05:41

James White. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, which is an apologetics -oriented ministry.

05:48

It provides many helpful resources and features the webcast, The Dividing Line. James is also an elder at the

05:55

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, a professor at Golden Gate Theological Seminary, and a critical consultant for the

06:01

New American Standard version of the Bible. Finally, Dr. White is a frequent debater with those both within the

06:07

Church and those of other beliefs, and he is the author of many books, most notably, and relative to this debate,

06:14

Debating Calvinism, which he co -authored with David Hunt, as well as The Potter's Freedom. So welcome,

06:19

Dr. White. And today, the debaters will have two 12 -minute segments each.

06:25

They can do with those times that which they please, either present or review past arguments from the other, or even cross -examine.

06:33

So with that, Dr. White, you today have the first 12 minutes. I think Steve does, because I had the last one last time.

06:41

Remember, I talked about Acts 13 and 48, and Steve said he wouldn't get a chance to respond to it. So I had the last section last time.

06:48

To activate Dr. White's line, my equipment is not working.

06:53

Please activate Dr. White's line. Okay, yeah, I'm up, and it's not my turn. It's Steve's, because I had the last word on the last program.

07:00

I brought up some issues regarding Acts 13 and 48, and he did not have an opportunity to respond to that. So it's actually his turn.

07:07

Okay, I'll take the time then. Paul, would you keep time for me here? The equipment's not working here. Okay. Yeah, well, last time we were on, last time

07:18

Dr. White spoke, he was going through some treatment of Acts 13.

07:24

I'm trying to remember how much of it you got through, Dr. White, because I know I've read what you've written on it before. But maybe we could just interact about that.

07:32

I'll use the 12 minutes to interact with you, Dr. White, if you'd like to be available there to interact. Now, I know you did say this about Romans 9.

07:41

You said that when it talks about Jacob, Esau does not talk about them as the fathers of nations. And you held that in verse 19 of Romans 9, that when the objector said that no one has resisted

07:54

God's will, that that is exactly what Paul was saying. I would love to go into that in detail.

08:00

You may be aware that there's been some discussion about that on our forum. I've written quite extensively just in the last couple days on that.

08:07

I won't go into answering that right now. I personally think you're quite mistaken about that. But, of course, that doesn't prove anything.

08:13

And I'm not going to try to prove anything about that. I'd rather move along to, let's say, go to Acts 13 .48,

08:19

if you'd like, where it says that the Gentiles heard Paul tell them that the gospel was going to the

08:27

Gentiles. And they were glad to hear it. And it says, and as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.

08:34

Now, just before you quit, you quoted it as if it said, as many as were ordained to believe, believed.

08:42

Of course, it doesn't say that. It says, as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed. And so the question is, what does it mean to be ordained to eternal life?

08:49

And, as you pointed out, most translations use the word appointed or something like that.

08:55

As many as were appointed to eternal life, believed. I personally don't prefer that translation, but, you know, most translators do.

09:04

And you thought that was pretty significant. Well, maybe it is significant. I know that when we talk about 1

09:11

Timothy 2 .4, where it says that God desires all men to be saved, that you think it means all kinds of men.

09:18

But I don't know of any translations that translate it that way. I think we do reserve the right to disagree with the translations from time to time, because we recognize that translations do have their limits.

09:29

And that's why there is exegesis. That's why you tell us what the Greek says and what the Greek verbs are and all that.

09:34

Because you don't rely entirely on translations. We do know that the word tasso that is used here, as many as were appointed to eternal life, is used also of the household of Stephanus in 1

09:46

Corinthians 16 .15, where it says that these people had devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints.

09:55

And so, apparently, I don't think we'd say they appointed themselves, although maybe you'd say that. It's clear that it's talking about a disposition that they had.

10:03

The word has a variety of meanings, and it's true that in some of the meanings, maybe most of the meanings in the New Testament, it refers to appointing somebody to an office or appointing someone to a position in the military or something like that.

10:14

But it's not the only way that the verb is understood. And there are some lexicons. Perhaps it's not the favored view.

10:21

But even views that aren't the favored view have some attestation. Let's say that it could be disposed or devoted.

10:29

And I would say that if we read it as those who were devoted to eternal life or those who were disposed to eternal life believed, then it would be telling us something about how these

10:39

Gentiles who believed differed internally.

10:46

They differed from the Jews who had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life in two verses earlier in verse 26.

10:54

I don't feel that an awful lot hangs on Acts 13 .48 to tell you the truth, although it is brought up a lot by Calvinists.

11:03

To me, let's take it as if we're talking about God appointing people to eternal life.

11:08

We can take it that way. To say that those that God had appointed to eternal life believed simply tells me that the people who believed are the same people that God appointed to eternal life.

11:19

And we all agree with that. We all agree that those who believe are appointed to eternal life. You have said that the appointment to eternal life is what caused their belief, and I think that's an opinion.

11:29

I don't think that that's something that the grammar requires, but if you want to insist on it, then I'm not going to argue too much about that.

11:36

I think that God has appointed that there will be many who have eternal life, and they are the ones who are comprised of the believing community.

11:45

I don't believe, however, that James, or that I should say Acts, is here referring to, what shall

11:54

I say, an absolute decree of eternal life that was made before the foundation of the world, because, and I said this once and you ridiculed it on your program, but I'll bring it up again because it's not ridiculous,

12:06

Luke tells us that practically the whole town was gathered at that synagogue, and if all who were before the foundation of the world ordained to have eternal life, if they all believed on that occasion, then every person who was elect became a

12:21

Christian in that town. That is, every elect person in that town became a Christian, and we would have to assume,

12:27

I think, that there were no more elect people in the town after this, because Luke is telling us what happened on that occasion.

12:34

I think it is more likely that he's telling us that there are two kinds of people in the synagogue, Jews and Gentiles, and the

12:39

Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, and the Gentiles were of the opposite disposition.

12:45

They were devoted to eternal life, they were disposed to eternal life, that is, they were inclined to want eternal life.

12:51

Now, in your discussion you mentioned that, of course, people who are unregenerate can't really want eternal life, a slave can't want to be free, or actually what you said is a slave can't free himself, but, of course, a slave can want to be free, and if he has somebody willing to free him, then a slave can be very much disposed toward freedom, and if someone offers him his freedom, he can choose that.

13:14

That's certainly not something that we could argue against in terms of the nature of slavery. If a slave is a slave, that doesn't mean he doesn't want to be free.

13:23

If somebody comes and offers him his freedom, then he is able to be free if he's disposed toward freedom.

13:29

I think many people who are not Christians are disposed toward eternal life, that is, they would like to have eternal life.

13:36

And I believe that those in that synagogue who were, well, I believe that they believed on that occasion.

13:42

And so that's how I understand that particular passage. I know it's different than what you believe, and you don't think it's a very strong exegesis,

13:49

I didn't go into the Greek tense of the verbs and so forth, partly because I don't think it's relevant. You, in your response to my remarks about this on your

13:57

Dividing Line broadcast, pointed out that if it was saying that they had disposed themselves to eternal life, then you need to have the pronoun in there that corresponds to themselves, disposed themselves.

14:10

Of course, I'm not arguing that it says they disposed themselves, I'm just saying they were disposed.

14:16

It doesn't tell us who disposed them. If I say that I'm disposed to go to bed early tonight,

14:22

I'm not telling you whether it's something I came up with on my own, or whether someone has a gun in my head and telling me to do it. It doesn't matter.

14:28

To say I'm disposed to it is simply telling my inclinations. And to say these people were inclined to eternal life doesn't tell us what force outside or inside themselves inclined them that way.

14:39

And that's just like we're not told what force disposed the household of Stephanas to devote themselves to the ministry of the saints.

14:48

It can be an internal thing. So it's not anything that really, I don't think any serious doctrine hangs on it, necessarily.

14:56

It's too ambiguous. So that's my understanding of Acts 13 -48. I realize it's very different in my approach to yours, because I don't have the

15:06

Greek expertise, but I've listened to your explanation of the Greek tenses and all that, and I don't really see that they make an awful lot of difference to this particular point

15:14

I'm making. Do you want to respond to that? Certainly. There are many things to respond to.

15:22

First of all, if we look at all the uses of tasso in the New Testament, there are only a few of them.

15:29

All of them are either translated the way that Acts 13 -48 is translated in all major translations, or in 1

15:36

Corinthians 16 -15, the reason you have devoted themselves is because there is a reflexive pronoun there. So there is no example of a disposed -toward, friendly -toward, whatever type situation use in the

15:48

New Testament. This would be the only place in the entire New Testament where we would have that usage. We have no usage in the close context of Luke.

15:56

We have no usage in far context, nothing that would parallel. Even in Acts 13 -46, where it says they judged themselves, which is you judged yourselves, again, the reflexive pronoun is there.

16:06

There is no reflexive pronoun in Acts 13 -48. Therefore, to present the idea of disposed predisposition, anything like that, simply doesn't have any basis in the lexical materials, in the grammar, in the syntax, or anything else.

16:21

But what is more is what I did point out in my discussion was that none of the sources found in Schenck.

16:27

And I found even the argument that you've made that this would mean everybody who was elected had to believe that one day, and no one else could ever be elected in that town.

16:35

I found that in Schenck. That's the only two places I've ever found it, because honestly, I've never heard that kind of argument before, and I cannot begin to understand the idea behind it.

16:43

It certainly is not suggested by the text in any way. But looking at what Schenck said, never in the entire discussion in his book, and this is one of the reasons why those folks on my side of the aisle see

16:54

Schenck as such a horrible resource, is he never once recognizes the syntactical category that we're looking at here in the text.

17:02

Acts 13 .48 presents to us what's called... Yeah, you went into that yesterday. Perhaps we shouldn't take up my time too much going into that again.

17:09

Our listeners can listen to the tape of that if they're interested in knowing about that syntactical category. I would say that since you say you don't understand the argument or it doesn't seem like it's in the text, what

17:19

I'm understanding is this. The Calvinist view is that when it says they were appointed to eternal life, it's referring to an appointment that was made by God before the foundation of the world.

17:29

Therefore, at that point, all people on the planet before the foundation of the world were appointed to one fate or another by God, and that Luke, according to the

17:37

Calvinist view, is saying that those who were in Antioch on this occasion, who belonged to that category of who were appointed to eternal life, when

17:46

Paul spoke, they believed. Now, my argument sounds like it makes perfectly good sense.

17:52

As Luke tells us, virtually everyone from the whole town was there in the synagogue, and all of those who were appointed to eternal life, that is, before the foundation of the world, believed on that occasion.

18:02

It doesn't say that. And it would argue that there were none left in the town who were appointed to eternal life who had not believed. Where does it say, where does the word all appear in Acts 13, 48?

18:11

It says as many, as many as. Yeah, that's as many. That's determined by the preceding phrase, which is those that we're hearing.

18:17

There's nothing in the grammar whatsoever that would warrant your insertion of the term all that you just put into your rendering.

18:25

Well, okay, so when it says as many as were ordained to eternal life believed, that doesn't mean all that were ordained to eternal life believed.

18:31

No. As many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Where does that mean that there could not be other people who,

18:39

I mean, you keep saying almost, you know, that everybody was there. In my mind, the word as many as means the same number as.

18:46

Isn't that what as many as means? It means the same number. Hassoi esan tetagmenoi means as many as were appointed did the action of the verb.

18:55

So those who believed had been appointed to eternal life. I'm not talking about the verb. I'm talking about the number.

19:01

When it says as many as, it means the same number as. Does it not? You're willing to say in front of people who know

19:09

Greek, I don't know Greek, but are you willing to say in front of our audience who know Greek that the term as many as does not refer to all or the same number as?

19:16

Well, I'm willing to break in at this point, because that's the 12 -minute mark, Steve. So, Dr. Weiss, your turn to continue with this thread of thought or something of your wishes.

19:24

Go ahead. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, I will say that inserting the word all here is eisegesis, and it is not substantiated by the text.

19:32

What it is saying is that all those who believed had been appointed to eternal life. To turn it around and say that everyone who was appointed to eternal life and all of the city of Antioch for all of eternity believed on that day is grossly unwarranted and has absolutely no basis in the text.

19:46

But I do want to go back to the text, because I think this is important. You may dismiss it, but I think it's very, very important, because this is what eisegesis is about, and this is a clear example of where a tradition, a philosophy, is being forced upon the text, and it's forcing the text to say something that it did not say.

20:04

As I've pointed out, the parallels that are suggested by Schenck, by the people cited in Schenck and that Mr. Gregg has cited in his

20:10

MP3s and in his writings, do not engage this text on its most basic level.

20:16

I point out that Schenck never points out that this is a periphrastic instruction. All they're doing is looking at tetagmenoi.

20:22

They don't even recognize that it's in a periphrastic instruction and that that has meaning. Nowhere in the entire book is that even referenced.

20:28

I've never heard Mr. Gregg explain this form of the language, and that is where you get eisegesis.

20:36

The text uses a certain form that means a pluperfect. That is, these individuals, whatever this action means, and you can't find another place in the

20:46

New Testament where it means disposed, it does not have a reflexive pronoun. So I submit to you that is a horrible mistranslation of the text at that point.

20:53

But if you just go with what the meaning is, and this is why all the

20:58

English translations produced by teams of scholars rather than a single individual render it the same way.

21:04

We can start with the ASV, the King James, move on the way up to the modern time. They all say the same thing as ESV, NASB, NET, etc.,

21:12

etc. They all say the same thing, and there's a reason for this. The reason is that this is a periphrastic construction, and what it means is a pluperfect action.

21:21

Something had already taken place prior to this, and as a result, they believed.

21:28

Now, some would say, yes, these people had disposed themselves to eternal life. Please look at the text again.

21:34

And when the Gentiles heard this, what did they hear? Paul's announcement that they were taking the gospel of the

21:40

Gentiles. Because the Jews were rejecting it, they were taking the gospel of Gentiles. When they heard this, they did two things.

21:46

There are two verbs here that describe what these individuals do. They rejoice and they glorify.

21:54

They begin rejoicing, they glorify, and then they believe. They rejoice, they glorify, and they believe.

22:02

Now, it is amazing to me that it could be suggested that these individuals had disposed themselves to eternal life before the message of how you have eternal life had been proclaimed to them.

22:17

Because that's what's being suggested. It has to be the way it is. Because it says, when the Gentiles heard this, they believed, having been appointed to eternal life.

22:27

Now, if it's having disposed themselves to eternal life, they had somehow disposed themselves to something before the message was delivered to them about how they could obtain it.

22:35

And how do you get disposed to eternal life? We're not talking about being disposed to repentance.

22:41

We're not talking about being disposed to faith. How are you disposed to eternal life? Where is that kind of phraseology ever used in the

22:49

Bible? Now, appointment to eternal life, that's understandable, but disposed to eternal life?

22:56

These are all foreign concepts that you can't find anywhere in the text.

23:01

And so, when someone says, well, everybody, you know, you put the word all or something like that, it's just not what it says.

23:07

It's describing for us, and it's the last phrase is, and they believed.

23:13

Who believed? Ha -soi, ei -son, te -tog, me -noi, ei -so -wein, ei -o -neon. Those who had been appointed to eternal life.

23:22

They're the ones who believed. And there's no problem with that in Luke's understanding. There's no problem with that in a biblical understanding.

23:28

Because it is God's appointment that grants faith. Faith is described as the gift of God.

23:35

Remember what Philippians 129 tells us. It had been granted to us to believe in Christ, to suffer for his name, and to believe in Christ.

23:44

Why did it have to be granted to us? Well, because the same reason we have in John chapter 6, that no man is able to come unto me unless the

23:51

Father who sent me draws him. And it is that drawing, that effective action of God, that results in our then coming to Christ.

24:00

And so I think it is important because when, and by the way, there is no parallel whatsoever between 1

24:08

Timothy 2 .4 and Acts 13 .48 in my comments on it. I have never said that you should translate 1

24:15

Timothy 2 .4 with a meaning for the words that cannot be found anywhere else in Paul's writings.

24:22

I have suggested to you that the term all men needs to be defined within its context, and that the immediate context before and after determines this.

24:33

I have presented the argument that to interpret 1 Timothy 2 .4 in such a fashion that you make it universalistic makes

24:40

Paul contradict himself, makes the New Testament contradict itself, that there is no reason to do that because of the immediate context.

24:46

But I have never suggested that we ignore the syntax of the language, the grammar of the language, the lexicography of the language or anything else, and adopt a translation that is not found in any of the

24:59

English translations that are available at your Christian bookstore today. And so I don't have to do that. There is no parallel to that.

25:05

But I think it might be good, since I wanted to get to that, 1 Timothy 2 .4 is one of the big three, and there we read that God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

25:16

And immediately everybody just goes, well, there it is. All men are to be saved. That's what

25:21

God's desire is. There can't be election. There can't be anything else. Well, let's continue reading, or let's at least look at the entire context.

25:30

What is he writing to Timothy about? He's writing to Timothy about the fact that we should pray, that we should have supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings made for who?

25:39

All men. Now, is that to be taken in a universalistic sense individually? Are you supposed to get out the

25:45

Ephesian phone book and start at the As or the Alphas and end at the Omegas and pray for every single individual?

25:51

Is that even how Paul interprets it? Look at the next verse. It is not. For kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

26:01

How does Paul interpret his own use of all men? Kinds of men. Kings, those in authority.

26:06

These are the people that need to be prayed for, even though they were persecuting the Christians, they needed to be prayed for.

26:12

For this is good and is pleasing the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

26:18

That is, he saves all kinds of men, people in leadership, slaves, sailors, even people in the army.

26:24

Amazingly, we're coming to know Jesus Christ. And why is that consistent with the text? Well, because he goes on to say,

26:30

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. And who is

26:36

Jesus the mediator between? Between all kinds of men. But is he the mediator between every single human being and God?

26:44

That's a question that I would ask of Steve Gregg. I'd like him to address that. Does Jesus Christ function as mediator between every single human being, including those who will end up in eternity in hell, and the

26:57

Father? Does the Son present his finished work before the Father on behalf of those who

27:02

God knows will never ever enter into his presence? Is that what the high priest does?

27:07

Does the high priest offer a sacrifice, and that sacrifice is not accepted by God? That is one of the main questions.

27:13

I did raise this on the first day, and I only did so briefly. I obviously felt it was important to lay a foundation that's been described as a

27:21

Gatling gun or machine gun style approach. I don't think that that's a fair description of it.

27:27

I think we have to recognize that there's a lot that needs to be presented in a very short period of time. I did make reference to that fact, and in reading

27:36

Romans 8, that when the question is asked, who will bring a charge against God's elect, part of the response that demonstrates that no one can bring a charge against God's elect, which is what demonstrates the perfection of our standing before God, is the fact that we have an intercessor.

27:53

The book of Hebrews tells us that he is able to save the uttermost because he ever lives to make intercession. He is able to save perfectly.

28:00

He is able to save completely. And the reason no one can bring a charge against God's elect, according to Romans chapter 8, is because he intercedes for us.

28:08

So, can Jesus Christ intercede for those that will never be saved?

28:14

Can he fail in the task of intercession? Now, I point out that the high priest has to go into the holy place.

28:21

After that sacrifice has been made, he has to go into the holy place, and he has to present that sacrifice there before God.

28:28

And so, if the sacrifice of Christ is not specific, if it is not in harmony with the extent of God's electing grace, that free grace, that elect people, as Paul himself said, he endures all things for whom?

28:45

For the sake of the elect. If there is not that group of the elect, not just a nebulous group, but the individuals that God from eternity has chosen, then for whom is

28:56

Christ going to intercede? If his sacrifice is just general, then that must mean that as the high priest, he presents his sacrifice before the

29:04

Father for all those for whom he makes atonement. And if he makes atonement for all men, then why is there anybody in hell?

29:10

If he has already borne in himself the punishment for their sin, then is that punishment going to be laid a second time upon the sinner for eternity?

29:19

Laid first upon the son, though God the Father in his infinite foreknowledge knows that this is a waste, that he's punishing his son, and yet that person is also going to receive the same wrath for his sin.

29:34

Is that really what's going to happen? Is that really an understanding that is consistent with the presentation of this gospel of grace?

29:43

Or do we see the perfection of John 6 .39, for example, that he will lose none of those given to him?

29:50

Does that not fit in perfectly with Romans 8, with Romans 9, with Acts 13 .48?

29:56

It is the consistency across the entire canon of the text of the

30:03

Bible, from beginning to end, of God's freedom and the fact that God has a purpose, a specific purpose that he is working out.

30:11

That's what gives purpose, not only to everything in our lives. That's why we can say

30:16

Romans 8 .28, he causes all things to work together for good, for them to love God, for them to be called according to his purpose.

30:22

But for all things, even those things we can't see the purposes of, the entire concept of theodicy, explaining why there is evil in the world, all comes back to this understanding that either

30:35

God wound this whole thing up and he knew there was going to be evil, but he didn't have a purpose for it, or he did have a purpose for it, and that purpose is focused first and foremost in redeeming a people in Christ Jesus, but it's going to be seen, finally, in God's self -glorification in eternity itself.

30:54

And I believe that does involve his decree. Nebuchadnezzar certainly recognized that, saw that, so did the

31:00

Old Testament writers. That's what the early church believed in Acts chapter 4. And so if that is the case, then we see what forces me to be reformed is the entire panoply of Scripture, the entire context of Scripture, presenting these things to me.

31:15

And that's really where I'm coming from as to why this is an important subject to address. Thank you,

31:21

Dr. White. If you're just joining us, you're listening to a simulcast being broadcast on both The Dividing Line and The Narrow Path.

31:28

I encourage our listeners, who perhaps just joined us, to realize that they can access all five days of the debates between Steve Gregg and Dr.

31:37

White. Steve Gregg's website is TheNarrowPath .com. Dr. White's is AOMIN .org.

31:44

At both websites, it's very easy to locate and access the MP3 files of all five days' worth of debates once they're all there.

31:50

That is, we are now in day four of five, and we're halfway through today's program. So next up is

31:56

Steve with his second set of 12 minutes. Steve? Okay, thank you. Yeah, you know, I've just realized that we're in day four, almost finished with day four, and really nothing has been said on this program by Dr.

32:07

White or myself that cannot be found in his books or in my lectures. It's a very rare opportunity for me to be able to converse with Dr.

32:16

White, so I'd like to talk about some things that can't be found in his books or in my lectures up to this point, and that would be to cross -examine some things.

32:25

Now, James White did ask me some questions, and a very strong temptation for me to take the time to answer them, but, you see, that's what's been happening through the whole four days is

32:36

I try to answer James White's questions, but I never get to move beyond the subjects that he introduces.

32:43

I'd like to introduce a subject or two here, if I could, in my time. So, Dr. White, I'd like to keep you with me online here.

32:51

Let's look at Romans 1, because I want to nail down exactly what the exegetical basis is for the doctrine of total depravity.

33:01

And I'd just like to ask you some questions, and these are questions that don't need long answers.

33:07

Most of them are yes -or -no type questions, and I have a lot of questions, so I'd kind of like to move through them as rapidly as we can, though I don't want to give you inadequate time to answer any of the questions.

33:18

But Romans 1, verses 18 through 32, is pretty much a classic proof text for total depravity.

33:27

It talks about how wicked people are, and how they've been given over by God, and so forth.

33:33

I'd just like to ask you some questions. Is this passage in your judgment about Gentiles? It's actually about,

33:40

I think, all of mankind. It can be applied solely to Gentiles. Gentiles, the Jews, certainly take that viewpoint in Romans chapter 2.

33:48

That's why in Romans chapter 3, Paul basically goes back and says, No, actually, though you thought

33:53

I was talking only about Jews, I'm also talking about you. And he wraps everybody up in verses 10 through 18 in that section.

34:00

Okay, so you're saying that this passage is about all mankind. Yes. Are you exegeting there?

34:06

Where's the word all? Well, the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous men.

34:12

That is the Greek term for impossible. It does not stop there. It says all unrighteous men who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.

34:20

It says that God is angry at all men who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.

34:25

If I were to say, I am angry at all judges who legislate from the bench, that doesn't mean I'm angry at all judges.

34:32

It just means I'm angry at all the ones who legislate from the bench. So Paul tells us that God is angry at all men who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.

34:39

I'm wondering where it says he's angry at all men. All have sinned and come to the shore of the glory of God.

34:46

Well, of course, but that's not in this passage. I think it's really one of the clearest givens we can possibly have.

34:56

Okay, in other words, it doesn't say in this passage that God is angry at all men. I'll tell you what, why don't you have your time, because you're not going to let me get a word in edgewise anyways.

35:04

So you go ahead and do your time, and then I'll do mine. James, all I need are short answers, yes or no. No, no, no, these are loaded questions that do not allow for a meaning examination.

35:16

James, please, let's be fair. The questions you asked me are loaded also. These are questions that are not unfair questions.

35:23

They're exegetical questions. The question is, is there anything that can be exegeted from this passage that tells us that Paul is talking about all men?

35:30

Yes, sir. Yes, sir, there is. Okay, what is it in this passage that tells us that? Okay, well, I started going there, and you interrupted me.

35:38

But it says, for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

35:44

Who is the them? Is God's general revelation limited only to sinful men, or do all men receive that knowledge?

35:50

That's not relevant to my question, James, because we could say the general revelation is available to all men, but that's not what

35:57

Paul's saying. Paul's saying those who suppress the truth and are unrighteous have had the advantage of his revelation.

36:03

That's true of them. It may be true of others, too, but Paul hasn't raised the question of anyone else. These people have received revelation from God, and they have suppressed it.

36:16

Well, yes, okay, I would agree with you that all men have. I'm not denying that, but Paul hasn't said anything about all men.

36:22

He's talking about certain men. Certain men who suppress the truth and are unrighteous, these people, what is known of God has been made known to them.

36:29

Now, there is nothing in the passage that tells us that Paul is talking about anyone other than these men that he's mentioned in verse 18.

36:39

Now, it also says that they, in verse 20 and 21, these people, they knew

36:46

God, okay, but they didn't want to glorify him as God, so they became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

36:54

At what point in time does an unbeliever's heart become darkened? I'm sorry, are you talking to me?

37:03

Yeah, you're the guy I'm talking to, yeah, that's right. I told you that, I asked you a question. Yeah, well, yeah, you've got a few questions, but like I was trying to say to Paul, but I couldn't get a word as wise there,

37:14

I don't think that this kind of interaction is overly meaningful when people can't hear what we're talking about.

37:21

So I really think that you should allow full time to him, and you can even take time away from me, and then we can, if we want to discuss

37:29

Romans chapter 1, I'll discuss Romans chapter 1. I will, not the whole time, I won't ask you to answer any more questions, but I will say this, what

37:37

I'm trying to do is to get you to talk about some specific passages rather than rattle them off, but don't say anything because you don't want to interact, but let me just say this.

37:45

No, I would like to interact, I just don't believe that you're allowing interaction. I'm asking for some straight answers.

37:51

No, you said that the questions I asked you were loaded questions. I asked you specific questions about the grammar of the text that you have made false statements about in public, and you won't answer them.

38:02

Okay, well I asked you a similar question. You have publicly said that Romans 1 is about all men. I'm saying where in the text does it say that?

38:09

Okay, the entire argument that the Apostle is presenting to lay the foundation for the necessity of justification by faith and the need of a

38:19

Savior to bear sins for Jews and Gentiles is found in Romans 1, 2, and 3.

38:25

Okay, I'll accept that answer. I'll accept that answer, okay? In other words, because of your understanding of the paradigm of Romans and the argument there, you read into Romans 1 things that are not said there, and that's fine.

38:37

See, I reject that. This is not interaction. That's not cross -examination. Cross -examination is asking questions, not making comments at the end that are unsubstantiated by what

38:47

I just said. That's not true, Dr. White. That is not true. You make comments about questions that I answer, too. Such as?

38:53

We have to have a fair exchange where I get to answer some questions, and I get to ask some questions, too. I think maybe you're just accustomed to dominating the question.

39:01

No, you just said that I isogeted something into the text. Yes. You just made that at the end.

39:08

You just made that at the end, and I have argued to you that to take it the way that you are taking it and to say this is only about a certain group of men and that there are people who have had knowledge of God and they have thanked him without having been redeemed or some kind of entire concept unknown to the entire book of Romans and to let you get away with that, that somehow is me reading something into the text?

39:31

Okay, Dr. White. Let's drop this point because I think our listeners have seen what you've said and what

39:37

I've said and we'll let them use their own reasoning powers about this. The truth of the matter is, and you don't have to answer anymore,

39:43

Dr. White, until it's your turn, which will be in just a couple minutes, actually. But what seems clear is that there's nothing in Romans 1 that says that Paul is talking about all men.

39:52

What he says might, in fact, be true of all men. We don't know, but Paul doesn't tell us that it is. And therefore, we have to bring that idea in.

40:01

Now, I asked Dr. White at what point in a person's and an unbeliever's life their hearts are darkened.

40:06

Paul talks about these people as people who once knew God, but their hearts have become darkened.

40:11

Why? Because they suppress the truth. I would think that Dr. White's view is that all unbelievers are born with their hearts darkened.

40:18

He describes them as dead in sins and darkened in their hearts and their imaginations and so forth. I don't find anywhere in the

40:24

Bible that states that this is the birth condition of every man. I do see Paul saying that there are certainly many men, and he's talking about them right here, who have known the truth, and they've rejected the truth, and as a result, darkness has come upon their hearts.

40:39

I believe this is true in virtually all the passages that talk about total depravity, at least that are used.

40:46

The reason I wanted to ask some specific questions about a passage, and in my opinion the reason Dr. White didn't want me to do so, is because it does not allow the

40:55

Calvinist to simply rattle off passages and say, see there. For example, when Dr.

41:01

White gave his original argument, he talked about the state of the antediluvian people, that the thoughts and imaginations of their heart were only evil continually.

41:09

He talked about the leopard can't change its spots and the Ethiopian can't change its skin, so cannot you who are accustomed to evil do good.

41:16

He talked about the heart being desperately wicked and deceitful above all things. He used a lot of scriptures, which the

41:22

Bible directs towards certain audiences and says this is true of them. But if we look at the context of each of these, we find that it's a specific group of people.

41:32

If we want to exegete the passage, we can't go to Genesis 6 or Jeremiah or these passages, and find a place where it is saying all human beings fit this category.

41:42

Jeremiah is addressing the Jews of his day who were that way. Now of course I'm not arguing that there aren't many others who are that way, and that's what

41:50

Dr. White's answer about Romans 1 was getting at. He's suggesting that I think that no one else would find this applicable to them.

41:57

I'm not questioning how many people besides this would be applicable to. I'm questioning what the passage is actually teaching.

42:03

I believe the passage is teaching what it says. There are people who have known God, there are people who did not like to know

42:10

God, they've suppressed the truth in their unrighteousness, and as a result they've become darkened and God is angry at them because they've suppressed the truth.

42:17

Now I'm going to go ahead, and I wanted to talk about quite a few passages. If we'd gotten shorter answers to some of these things, we might have covered more ground.

42:25

But I really need to give Dr. White the microphone because we're going to run out of time here. If we give him 12 minutes, we're going to run near the end, so let's go ahead and turn it over.

42:33

Thank you, Dr. White. All right, thank you, Steve. Dr. White, the next 12 minutes are yours. If I had given shorter answers, okay.

42:40

Well, I'm sorry that this has developed. I really think that these are issues that require a very high level of discussion, and I don't think that that kind of interaction with questions that are, you know,

42:57

I'm sorry, but when you have to throw in little taglines at the end, those are not questions that are meant to get us to the truth.

43:04

And I think that the vast majority of our listeners will recognize that if you look at Romans chapter 1, and you look at the vice list, the list of sins listed by the

43:16

Apostle Paul, they seem beginning 28 and following to be very much the very same sins that Paul lists elsewhere as the very things that all

43:25

Christians struggle against and that are a part of the fallen nature of man.

43:31

And what happens is after this universal condemnation of man, the Jew says, ah, yes, but I don't do that because I have the law.

43:39

And he then says, well, the mere possession of the law does not justify you before God. That's what

43:44

Romans chapter 2 is about. And Romans chapter 3 then wraps all this stuff up, and it presents to us the foundation of justification by faith by saying, all men stand before God on the same ground.

43:59

There is none righteous, no, not even one. Now, if you use what was just said, then you'd have to go back to the text that Paul's quoting.

44:06

Well, that's just about one group. This is about his enemies at a certain point in time. Paul, you can't extend this out to all people.

44:14

Come on, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God. Well, that was just a particular group. But what does the

44:20

Apostle do with these texts? Verse 19, now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God, because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight.

44:40

And so what I tried to say, which is what you'll find in the vast majority of commentaries on this subject, is that what we have here is a single argument.

44:51

Paul didn't divide this up into chapters. And so to start in the front part of the argument, and to come to a conclusion there and ignore the next two -thirds of the argument, which as we would be looking at it would be chapters two and three, and to pretend we can come to a meaningful conclusion at that point,

45:07

I think is disingenuous and not worth really discussing to any length.

45:15

What we have is the assertion that all flesh is made to be silent before God, everyone stands equally condemned, and that is why you need one

45:26

Savior for Jews and Gentiles. You can't have one Savior for Jews and a different Savior for Gentiles.

45:32

This is how the Apostle Paul is avoiding the Jewish -Gentile split, is to emphasize the unity that exists in the condemnation of mankind.

45:42

But again, I think there is a fundamental difference between how we approach even the inspiration of Scripture, the canon of Scripture, certainly how we view the very nature of God as well, in regards to whether it is glorifying to God or not, that He has exhaustive knowledge of future events, whether there is a decree that is involved.

46:06

All of these things are, I think, very, very important, and they are part of the fundamental difference that exists between us.

46:13

And maybe we can go into those things at some point in time, I suppose, but I think they do result in a lot of the problems that we are having in discussing these things.

46:22

So yes, I do believe that if we are going to assert that Romans chapter 1 is to be limited in audience to, well, we weren't told who, but to some subgroup, then if that means that there are people who, though they had a revelation from God, gave thanks to God, that there are people who do not react by suppressing the knowledge of God, then what that means is we need to identify these folks.

46:53

Where are they? Where are they discussed in Romans? They're not discussed in Romans 1. Are they in Romans 2?

46:58

No, they're not in Romans 2. Romans 3? Nope, now we're just talking about sinners. Where are they discussed? Why do they need a

47:04

Savior? I mean, to just go, well, you know, Paul might mean that, but we don't know.

47:12

I guess this is this idea that is very popular today of epistemic humility.

47:19

We just don't know. We just don't want to go beyond the text, you see. And my experience in the academy is that that is the road that leads you to those people who will point us to the scriptures and they'll say, oh,

47:33

I believe it's the word of God, but I really don't believe that you can derive any particular systematic theology out of it. You know, there's conflicts between this person and that person.

47:40

We just really don't know. And if we really don't know what God is doing, for example, in the atonement, or do we know what he's doing in the resurrection?

47:52

Do we know what he's doing in all the gospel? What message do we have when we have to look to the world and go, well, we just don't know?

47:58

I mean, we have some theories, but we want to be epistemically, you know, humble and just admit what we don't know.

48:06

And so we're not sure what to say to you. We're not really sure who Jesus is or things like that.

48:11

That's why at the very, very beginning I said that the key issue here is the consistency of one's interpretation of scripture and whether one will allow all of scripture to speak or whether you will cut it up into pieces.

48:28

And that's why I have tried to object to the idea of let's isolate Romans 1 out.

48:34

Let's not allow it to be connected to Romans 2 and 3, which is actually one big long argument.

48:40

And let's just ask yes or no questions on this. I object to that. I would never ask anybody else to do that.

48:47

I have not asked Steve Gregg to do that. When I have asked him questions about Acts 13, 48, it is because he has told people that a particular translation of the text is better than another, and he's wrong.

49:00

This is all there is to it. It's a factual thing. It's not a loaded question. It is let's look at the text.

49:07

Do the scholarly sources back up this kind of assertion or not? Are there reciprocal pronouns?

49:14

Are there reflexive pronouns? Are they there? Those things are direct, clear questions about the meaning of a particular text.

49:21

It is not the same thing as saying, well, I only want you to look at Acts 13, 48, and I don't want you to look at Acts 13, 46.

49:27

I've never said that to someone. And as I said before, that's not at all parallel to 1 Timothy 2, 4, the discussions that are found there, and the questions that I have asked in regards to whether Christ does intercede for those who will eventually be under the wrath of God.

49:42

Does God's wrath fall upon others? When we talk about the perfection of Christ's work, when it is said that Christ appears in the very presence of the

49:51

Father for us, who is he appearing in the presence of the Father for?

49:57

Whose name is written upon his hand? When it says that we are the sheep of Christ, and Christ says,

50:03

I know my own, my own know me, there is a reciprocal relationship that exists between Christ, the shepherd, and his sheep.

50:12

How can he someday stand in front of those people and say, depart from me, for I never knew you? How can that happen?

50:20

Or are we not really looking here at the issue of whether we look at the gospel as something that God does for his own glory, or whether it is something that man is in essence in charge of.

50:36

It's a plan that has been provided. God wants every single individual to take advantage of the plan, even though for some reason he waited until tens of thousands of generations of people had passed without ever hearing about it, and so on and so forth, and then even then he didn't send prophets to certain peoples and things like that, but God still wants everybody to take advantage of it, and that's his heart's desire, and he is going to be eternally disappointed, because there are going to be people in hell under his wrath that he loves, and he loves perfectly, but he's just going to be disappointed for all eternity.

51:14

That's just the way it's going to be. Or do we listen to all of what scripture has to say, recognize that such things as libertarianism in regards to the human will, ignores the biblical teaching about sin, ignore the fact that the

51:30

Bible says that when Jesus said, he who sins is a slave of sin, yes, a slave may desire to be free, but who must set that slave free, according to Jesus' own words?

51:43

It is of course the Son must set you free, and it is in that very same section of John chapter 8 that Jesus explained the unbelief of the

51:52

Jews, who by the end of the chapter pick up stones of stonium, the very people who had said they believed in him halfway through the chapter.

51:58

He explains their unbelief by saying, why do you not hear my words? It is because you cannot hear them.

52:04

Those who belong to God hear my words. Now who makes that decision?

52:10

Are the sheep the ones who choose the shepherd? Or is Jesus' explanation, the only way

52:17

Jesus' explanation makes any sense is to recognize that God is the one who gives ears, God is the one who gives eyes, and that it is those that his mercy is extended to, who then experience that.

52:28

And so it is an important thing. It's important, for example, the fact that in just a matter of hours this weekend,

52:35

I will be in Fullerton, California, debating a Muslim on the deity of Christ. And I will use the exact same hermeneutical methodology to defend the deity of Christ that I would use to defend the resurrection, monotheism, the inspiration of scripture, or whatever else it might be.

52:54

And I will present to the Muslims, if there are any questions relevant to it, and there have been in the past, a reformed understanding of God's sovereignty and the gospel.

53:05

And I must do so if I am going to be consistent in my study of the scriptures, my proclamation of the scriptures, and my defense of the faith.

53:13

We are called upon to give an answer, a reason for the hope that lies within us.

53:19

And the only way to do that, I believe, is to start off with a firm foundation. And that firm foundation is to have the same view of scripture that was held by Jesus and the apostles, by those in the

53:29

Old Testament, that this is God speaking to us. And if it is God's purpose to reveal to us what these texts mean for our edification, for our sanctification, and to restrain the madness of man who is constantly trying to insert himself into the glory of God and to control the power of God, then

53:50

I think it is vitally important to discuss these things. But I obviously feel that it must be done in such a way that it is the text that gets focused upon and all of the text that gets focused upon.

54:05

And I can say without any doubt whatsoever that in asking the questions that I have asked, whether they will be answered or not,

54:14

I do not know. But in asking the questions that I have asked, my purpose in asking them is to clarify the very words of scripture and to search for consistency of theology to the glory of God.

54:28

That is the purpose for asking of those questions. And I hope people will hear that and it will come through clearly to them.

54:35

Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. White. Since we have a couple minutes before the end of the hour, perhaps, gentlemen, you can give us maybe a 20 -second shot each about what you hope to look into or discuss tomorrow.

54:47

Steve, how about you? Well, I'd like to ask some of the questions tomorrow that I wanted to ask

54:53

Dr. White about some of his key passages. They are exegetical questions. They're not trick questions.

54:59

They are loaded questions, it is true, but they're not trick questions. They are honest questions which, if honest answers are given, will give us insight into what the text says.

55:08

And so there's quite a few of the proof texts of Calvinism I'd like to do that with. I don't know if Dr. White will want to give me those answers.

55:14

If he doesn't, I'll just give the questions to our listeners and see if they can dig out the answers themselves. All right,

55:20

Dr. White, how about you? A little preview for tomorrow. Really no plans.

55:26

I don't, again, as long as questions are based upon the text and you're actually allowed to correct any false presuppositions that are made as a part of the question, that's fine.

55:40

But I think if there's going to be things like yes or no questions that defy yes or no answers,

55:47

I don't know if that's going to be worthwhile. Well, thank you, Dr. White, and I encourage our listeners, perhaps who have joined late, to visit both

55:55

Steve and Dr. White's websites. Steve's is thenarrowpath .com. Dr. White's is aomin .org.

56:02

At both websites, it's easy to locate and access the MP3 files of the preceding days.

56:08

Today is day four of five. Tomorrow is at 2 p .m. Pacific time for Steve's show and Alpha and Omega Ministries' webcast, which is

56:17

The Dividing Line, is 11 a .m. Tuesdays and 4 p .m. Thursdays, both

56:22

Mountain Standard Time. So, gentlemen, thank you very much. We look forward to tomorrow. Encourage our listeners to join with us for the final day.

56:29

And now, Steve. Yeah, I just need to wind down the program. I think what I'm going to suggest is since Mr.

56:37

Gregg clearly has no intention of doing serious cross -examination, that if that's what they want to do, then what we need to do is do it as we do in the debates where you cannot trust the other person to behave.

56:49

And that means what I'm going to suggest, and I'm going to fire off an e -mail as soon as we're done here, I will suggest a 60 -second maybe question, two minutes to respond, one minute for the other person to respond to that, you move on to the next subject.

57:06

That's what we have to do in debates where you just simply can't trust that it's going to be handled in the proper way, that one side is just going to be interrupting the other and not allowing meaningful communication to take place.

57:17

And that's the way to do it. So as soon as we wrap up here, I will fire that off to the moderator because for some reason

57:24

I can't e -mail Steve Gregg. He hasn't figured out why that is. But I will send it off to the moderator and say, that's the only way you're really going to make this work in a meaningful fashion without the little jabs and just the childish things that went on in there.

57:42

I apologize to the audience that that even happened, but I didn't expect it to happen.

57:49

I guess given what's been going on in the forums and stuff, I shouldn't be overly surprised that that took place today.

57:55

But I, for one, think this subject is far too important to treat it in that fashion.

58:01

If you're going to ask an important question, for example, about the very foundation of the doctrine of sin itself, about which

58:11

I have written extensively in The God Who Justifies, and I can tell Mr. Gregg has never read that work and wouldn't be interested in reading that work, it needs to be done in a proper fashion.

58:22

And that kind of stuff, I don't get it. But anyway,

58:28

I do get it from people that I would consider enemies of the faith. But what bothers me is when someone who claims to be my brother in Christ is doing that.

58:36

That's where the concern comes for me. So we'll see what happens tomorrow. It's going to be the last day one way or the other.

58:43

We'll see you then. Bye. Join us again next